exact claim in Alabama

2001First, a trial judge may modify a jury verdict that "`include[s] or exclude[s] a sum which is clearly recoverable or not as a matter of law, or which is totally unsupported by the evidence, where there is an exact standard or rule of law that makes the damages legally and mathematically ascertainable at a precise figure.'" Id.

1989First, a damages award *Page 1171 " 'may include or exclude a sum which is clearly recoverable or not as a matter of law, or which is totally unsupported by the evidence, where there is an exact standard or rule of law that makes the damages legally and mathematically ascertainable at a precise figure.' " 493 So.2d at 1378 .

2013Further, “[a]s we stated in Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000): “ ‘The appellate courts of this state have consistently held, since the United States Supreme.

2013Further, “[a]s we stated in Tyson v. State, 784 So.2d 328 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 784 So.2d 357 (Ala.2000): “ ‘The appellate courts of this state have consistently held, since the United States Supreme.

2013P. This Court has previously considered and rejected this exact claim in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), stating: “Use of the word ‘you,’ without more, in relationship to a jury charge on mitigating evidence does not imply that the finding of a mitigating circumstance must be unanimous.” 820 So.2d at 148 (citing Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)).

2013P. This Court has previously considered and rejected this exact claim in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), stating: “Use of the word ‘you,’ without more, in relationship to a jury charge on mitigating evidence does not imply that the finding of a mitigating circumstance must be unanimous.” 820 So.2d at 148 (citing Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)).

2013Moreover, even if this Court were willing to agree with Edwards that there is a distinction between the “absence of flight” instruction rejected in Albarran and the “consciousness of innocence” instruction rejected here, this Court adopts the reasoning of Commonwealth v. Thomas, 54 A.3d 332 (Pa.2012), a case that expanded the holding of Hanford in determining that a defendant is not entitled to the exact instruction Edwards now requests.

2013In Thomas , the defendant asked for an instruction on “consciousness of innocence” in order “to make sure the playing field is equal.” Thomas, 54 A.3d at 342 .

2012(Defendants’ brief, at p. 43.) As noted in Turner , supra—a decision rendered subsequent to Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), on which the defendants rely — this Court has also, on more than one occasion, considered and rejected this exact claim: “Alabama Power argues that Alabama’s wrongful death statute denies it its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, §§ 6 and 13, of the Alabama Constitution because the statute allows only punitive damages, and not compensatory damages, upon a finding of negligence by a preponderance of the

2012(Defendants’ brief, at p. 43.) As noted in Turner , supra—a decision rendered subsequent to Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), on which the defendants rely — this Court has also, on more than one occasion, considered and rejected this exact claim: “Alabama Power argues that Alabama’s wrongful death statute denies it its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, §§ 6 and 13, of the Alabama Constitution because the statute allows only punitive damages, and not compensatory damages, upon a finding of negligence by a preponderance of the

2005Melson v. State, 775 So.2d 857, 896-98 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Rieber v. State, 663 So.2d 985, 995-96 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), aff'd, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.1995).

1952The exact principle was enunciated in Capital Motor Lines v. Gillette, supra, 235 Ala. 157 (9), 177 So. 881 .

1952The exact principle was enunciated in Capital Motor Lines v. Gillette, supra, 235 Ala. 157 (9), 177 So. 881 .

1937Sayers v. Tallassee Falls Manufacturing Co., 167 Ala. 553 , 52 So. 892 .

1937Sayers v. Tallassee Falls Manufacturing Co., 167 Ala. 553 , 52 So. 892 .

1895Many authorities upon these questions are cited by Mr. Cook in his work on Stocks and Stockholders (1 Vol. § 636, p. 874; Third Edition.) The exact rule is correctly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Comanche County v. Lewis, 133 U. S. 198 , 33 Law Ed. 604 as follows: ‘It is universally affirmed that when a legislature has full power to create corporations, its acts recognizing as valid a defacto corporation, whether private or municipal, operates to cure all defects in steps leading up to the organization, and makes a de jure out of what 'was only a de facto corporation.’ So

1895Many authorities upon these questions are cited by Mr. Cook in his work on Stocks and Stockholders (1 Vol. § 636, p. 874; Third Edition.) The exact rule is correctly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Comanche County v. Lewis, 133 U. S. 198 , 33 Law Ed. 604 as follows: ‘It is universally affirmed that when a legislature has full power to create corporations, its acts recognizing as valid a defacto corporation, whether private or municipal, operates to cure all defects in steps leading up to the organization, and makes a de jure out of what 'was only a de facto corporation.’ So